HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-05 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (19)
February 28, 2013
Ms. Judith Tymon
North Andover Town Planner
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Regency Place PRD, 464 Appleton St.
Peer Review by Hancock Associates
Dear Ms. Tymon:
We have received a copy of Hancock Associates’ February 8, 2013 Stormwater
Definitive PRD Subdivision Plan Peer Review for the above referenced project, and
we offer the following response. To facilitate the review of this information, we have
reproduced each of Hancock Associates’ comments in Italics, and our response to
each comment immediately follows.
Conventional Subdivision Proof Plan
1. The centerline radius of the first curve in from Blue Ridge Road does not
appear to meet the Subdivision Rues and Regulations Section 6.8
requiring a minimum radius of 225 feet. The radius provided appears to be
150 ft. (radii are not labeled).
CSI response: The centerline radius for the first curve is 125 feet. This radius
corresponds to the center of the existing right-of-way of the previously approved
(but not developed) Grapevine Road. The roadway indicated on the proof plan is
an extension of the previously approved right-of-way.
2. The plan does not depict the northerly side of Appleton Street west of the
wall corner as a wall as shown on the Existing Conditions Plan and
Definitive Subdivision Plan. The Applicant should demonstrate that a 50-
foot Right of Way is possible within this area (Lots 2 and 3).
CSI response: When the Proof Plan was developed we assumed that the
owners of the subject property have the right to develop the full width of the
existing right-of-way. If that is not the case, the Proof Plan roadway could easily
be moved to the west the 15 to 20 feet that would be required to only use the left
half of the right-of-way. The required lot area on Lots 2 and 3 could be made up
by moving the right of way further to the east in front of Lots 4, 5, and 6, which
CHRISTIANSEN & SERGI, INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
160 SUMMER STREET, HAVERHILL, MA 01830
tel: 978-373-0310 www.csi-engr.com fax 978-372-3960
z Page 2
have combined areas and CBA’s well in excess of the areas required to make up
what would be lost on Lots 2 and 3.
3. Zoning 7.1.1 states
"Contiguous Buildable Area (CBA) As of April 28, 1986, the area of any new
lot created, exclusive of area in a street or recorded way open to public use,
at least seventy five (75) percent of the minimum lot area required for zoning
shall be contiguous land other than land located within a line identified as
wetland resource areas in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act,
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 and the Town of
North Andover Wetland Protection Bylaw, Chapter 178 of the Code of North
Andover. The proposed structure must be constructed on said designated
contiguous land area.
The North Andover Wetland Bylaws has the following definition of a "wetland
resource area":
§178.2 Jurisdiction.
Except as permitted in writing by the Commission, or as provided in this
Bylaw, no person shall engage in the following activities ("activities"): removal,
filling, dredging, discharging into, building upon, or otherwise altering or
degrading the wetland resource areas described in the following sentence.
The Town's wetland resource areas consist of:
1) any isolated vegetated wetland,
2) any ephemeral pool
3) any vegetated wetland bordering on any creek, river, stream, pond or lake,
4) any bank, beach, marsh, wet meadow, bog, or swamp,
5) any land under any creek, river, stream, pond or lake,
6) any 100-foot buffer zone of wetland areas 1-5 listed above,
7) any land subject to storm flowage, or flooding by groundwater or surface
water,
8) and the 200-foot riverfront area.
Based on these definitions it would appear that areas within the 100' buffer
zone should not be counted towards to the CBA. It appears that the CBA
calculated for lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 utilized buffer zone areas and must be
recalculated or the applicability of this requirement refuted.
CSI response: This issue was discussed and resolved at the February 19, 2013
Planning Board meeting. The Buffer Zone area can be part of the CBA.
4. Please provide sight distance information showing compliance with the
requirements at the entrance and also along the vertical curves from
Station 3+50 to 7+0 (per 6.8.9).
z Page 3
CSI response: Although the Proof Plan does not show the additional detail and
topography of Blue Ridge Road to either side of the proposed intersection, the
intersection is the same as the one on the proposed Definitive Plan. Sheet 7 of
the Definitive Plan shows a clear line of site from the proposed intersection for
approximately 400 feet in each direction. This exceeds the sight distance
requirements for these local streets with a design speed of 30 miles per hour.
The lengths of the vertical curves for the proposed roadway exceed the minimum
lengths specified by the Regulations in Section 6.8.1 Table 1A, so the sight
distance is adequate for the specified curves.
5. The applicant should provide sufficient information to indicate the general
volumes, rates, flows that would be generated by the subdivision and
must be attenuated by the drainage system per Section 4.3. (1) (J) of the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land.
CSI response: We believe that this information is required for a preliminary
Subdivision Plan because it would give the Planning Board an approximation of
the rates and volumes that could be expected for a forthcoming Definitive Plan.
In this case, the Definitive Plan is completed and a full stormwater report has
been submitted. Since the same Stormwater Management Standards would be
applicable to a conventional subdivision plan, it can be assumed that mitigation
would be provided to keep the runoff from the subdivision at or below existing
rates, which are defined on the submitted Stormwater Management Report.
There would be ample area available on the two-acre lots to construct the
required detention and infiltration facilities.
6. The applicant should indicate whether the existing street is subject to the
Scenic Roads Act per Section 4.3.4 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Subdivision of Land.
CSI response: We have made a request to Ms. Tymon as to whether the Town
has a list of designated scenic roads and if so whether Blue Ridge Road or this
portion of Appleton Street are included on the list.
7. The proposed cul de sac is over the maximum allowable length of 600'
and would require a waiver to construct (Table 1A).
CSI response: A waiver from the regulations would be required if the Proof Plan
roadway was going to be built. Notation indicating the need for a waiver will be
added to the Plan if the Board deems it necessary.
8. The turnaround ROW and pavement radii should be labeled on the plan to
demonstrate compliance (Table 1A).
z Page 4
CSI response: The radius of the turnaround easement shown on the plan is 60
feet, and the radius of the pavement is 50 feet, as required. The dimensions can
be added to the plan if the Board determines it to be necessary.
Definitive Subdivision
1. The applicant has not provided any sign details. All signs shall be in
compliance with Zoning Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations.
CSI response: The developer will coordinate with the DPW prior to the street
sign/ stop sign installation to ensure compliance with Town Standards. No sign
lighting is proposed for the project.
2. As per comment above regarding Zoning 7.1.1, it would appear that areas
within the 100' buffer zone cannot be counted towards to the CBA. It appears
that the CBA calculated for lots 5 and 6 utilized buffer zone areas and must be
recalculated.
CSI response: This issue was discussed and resolved at the February 19, 2013
Planning Board meeting. The Buffer Zone area can be part of the CBA.
3. Lot 4 does not appear to comply with Zoning Section 7.1.2 Lot Width for any
lot created after May 1, 1995, the minimum width of the lot shall be distance
of one hundred (100) feet between the street frontage and the front building
line. The width shall be measured in a line parallel to the street. This
requirement shall apply in all zones except Residence 4 (R4) and Village
Residential (VR); for zone R4, said minimum width of the lot shall be a
distance of (eighty) 80 feet and for zone VR, said minimum width of the lot
shall be a distance of (eighty) 80 feet.
CSI response: The plans will be revised to include a reconfiguration of Lot 4 that
has the required 100 foot lot width.
4. The Applicant should provide a legal opinion outlining his right to make
changes to the location and configuration of the existing right of way of
Appleton Street subject to and preserving the rights of others. In particular the
proposed transformation of the segment between the proposed cul-de-sac
and wall corner labeled as a proposed Utility and Access Easement.
CSI response: Appleton Street runs from Dale Street to Blue Ridge Road
(formerly known as South Bradford Street). The road is currently public and
developed from Dale Street to the northwest corner of Open Space B. Physically
from that point to Blue Ridge Road the road is overgrown and used only by the
Dupuis’ as part of their farm and their access to Blue Ridge Road. Based on
parol evidence this has been the condition for well over 50 years.
z Page 5
The town clerk could supply no record of the road being accepted as a public
way other than that portion from the northwest corner of Open Space Parcel B to
Dale Street which occurred in the 1980s.
We did find that in the spring of 1929 Warrant Article No.52 asked the selectmen
to petition the County of Essex to discontinue Appleton Street in this area. The
vote was affirmative. The County did just that and recorded a plan No.2421
showing various streets including Appleton Street which they discontinued for the
town. Since this time this section of Appleton Street has remained a private way.
We performed a title search of abutter’s to the now private Appleton Street and
found no specific grant of rights.
After consulting with the client’s title attorney we have concluded that although
there is a possibility that someone may have rights to access from between Dale
Street and Blue Ridge Road the construction of Regency Place will not only
continue but also improve that access.
5. The application requests a number of waivers to the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land and two "waivers" to
section 8.5.7.D of the Zoning Bylaw. The waivers requested to the Zoning
Bylaw may require approval from the North Andover Zoning Board of
Appeals.
CSI response: The request for waivers from Section 8.5.7.D of the Zoning Bylaw
is consistent with waivers requested and granted by the Planning Board in the
past for other PRD projects. We have attached for reference a page taken from
the record decision for the Autumn Chase PRD Special permit in which a waiver
was granted from the requirements of Section 8.5.7.D, Buffer Zone.
6. The applicant should list the intended Ownership entity for the Open
Space on the plans (Zoning 8.5.6. (F)(3)).
CSI response: It is the intent of the Applicant to offer the Open Space parcels to
the Town. Appropriate notation will be added to the Cover Sheet.
7. The applicant must provide written justification for the requested waivers in
accordance with Section 2.7.2 and Section 5.1.8 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land.
CSI response: The required written justification will be submitted to the Planning
board.
8. Pavement widths and scenic road designations of adjacent street should
be added to Sheets 2 & 3 (Subdivision 5.2.5.2(9)).
z Page 6
CSI response: The pavement widths and any scenic road designations will be
added to the plans.
9. The applicant should add the bearing and distances to the profile plan as
required by Section 5.2.5.4(b)(1) and (2) of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land.
CSI response: The required bearings and distances will be added to the plan.
10. The information required in Section 5.2.6(c) Test Data has not been provided.
The applicant should provide soil borings along the roadway to determine
depth to water table and ledge.
CSI response: Section 5.2.6(c) states that Soil borings or test pits shall be made at
locations and to depths determined by the Director of Public Health along all
proposed roadways. We have not received any notification from the Director of
Public Health that test pits in the roadway are required.
11. This office has not performed a complete review of the Stormwater
Management Report since that review is being completed by Eggleston
Environmental.
CSI response: No response necessary.
12. The north side of the proposed roadway intersects with Blue Ridge Road in
an irregular manner and does not comply with Table 1A for centerline radius
or curb radius. The applicant should request waivers for this situation.
CSI response: The centerline radius for the first curve is 125 feet. This radius
corresponds to the center of the existing right-of-way of the previously approved
(but not developed) Grapevine Road. A waiver request will be added for the
centerline radius. The curb radii on both sides of the intersection are 40 feet, as
required.
13. The slope of the road along the curb of the cul de sac is less than 1% and
does not comply with Table 1A.
CSI response: The 1% minimum grade specified in Table 1A is for the centerline
profile grade. The proposed roadway conforms to this requirement. While the
grade along the edge of pavement may be less than 1%, it should be noted that
the roadway design includes outward sloping shoulders and roadside drainage
swales, so stormwater will not be flowing along the edge of pavement. The slope
along the edge of pavement is inconsequential.
14. Site distances should be provided. (Subdivision 6.8.9)
z Page 7
CSI response: The sight distances, which exceed 450 feet along Blue Ridge
Road in both directions from the proposed intersection, will be added to the
plans.
15. Ten-foot wide drainage easements have been provided adjacent to the road.
Subdivision Section 6.13(I) requires twenty-foot wide easements.
CSI response: The easements referred to are intended to provide maintenance
access for the roadside drainage swales. They provide an access width far
greater than 20 feet because the roadway right-of-way lies along one side of the
easement. Access to the swales will be from the adjacent roadway, not along
the widths of the easements. The drainage easements should be considered an
extension of the roadway easement width rather than as a separate easement.
16. Subdivision Section 6.13. (III) prohibits utility easements crossing open space
unless approved by the Board upon recommendation of the Department of
Public Works. The plan shows easements for drainage in Open Space areas
A and C and a sewer and utility easement in Open Space B.
CSI response: The existing Sewer and Utility Easement that runs through Open
Spaces A and B is an existing easement for a Town sewer.
The land areas within the drainage easements in Open Space Parcels A and C
can be removed from the open space parcels and added to Lots 1 and 6 if the
Board prefers not to have them in the Open Space parcels.
17. Fire hydrants location will require written approval from the Fire Chief and
Department of Public Works (Subdivision 6.15.2).
CSI response: A set of plans was submitted to the Fire Department for review.
18. A street sign should be shown on the plans (Subdivision 6.20)
CSI response: The required street sign will be added to the plans.
19. The applicant should demonstrate that there exists two feet of naturally
occurring soil between the bottom of all infiltration structures and the
maximum annual water table (Subdivision Appendix V).
CSI response: The test pits results for the tests conducted in Infiltration Basins A
and C are provided on Sheet 4 of the plans. We have requested and received
permission from the Conservation Commission to dig the required test pit in
proposed Infiltration Basin B, which is located within the buffer zone. The test
pits for Infiltration Basins B and D are scheduled to be performed on March 7th,
after which the plans will be revised to include the results.
z Page 8
20. The plan shows two inlets to the proposed Stormceptor; please provide
appropriate detail for the connections.
CSI response: The Stormceptor unit is able to accommodate two inlets. A
configuration with two (or more) inlets is a standard application of the device. For
the STC 900 unit, the manufacturer’s technical manual indicates a required inlet
to outlet elevation difference of at least 3 inches when multiple inlet pipes are
used. The unit proposed for the project does not currently have the required 3
inch elevation difference. The plans will be revised to provide the required 3 inch
drop. The detail included on Sheet 11 of the Plans is the typical detail provided
by the manufacturer. Prior to the manufacturing of the structure to be used in the
project, the manufacturer will provide a detailed cut sheet for the specific unit
which will be submitted to the Town Engineer for approval.
21. The "standards for material and construction methods “section, sheet 10,
reference to” Turnpike Street" should be revised.
CSI response: The note regarding the Mass Highway Department Standards is
not applicable to the project and will be removed.
22. The applicant should clarify if the drop inlet is intended to have a 48" sump
similar to a catch basin.
CSI response: No sump is proposed. The sole function of the structure is to
provide a mechanism to carry the water from the upgradient swale across the
street to Infiltration Basin A. It is not intended to function as a treatment device.
23. The pavement and right of way widths on Blue Ridge Road should be shown
within 100 feet of the intersection.
CSI response: The pavement and right of way widths will be added to the plan.
24. Existing structures extending 50 feet beyond the subdivision boundaries must
be shown on the plan.
CSI response: There are no existing structures located within 50 feet of the
subdivision boundaries.
25. Existing contours extending 50 feet beyond the subdivision boundaries must
be shown on the plans.
CSI response: Topography is provided on the plans for the area outside of the
project boundaries within the railroad right-of-way up the top of the slope that
runs downgradient toward the site behind Lots 1 through 4. There is no work
proposed elsewhere around the perimeter of the site, and almost all of the
z Page 9
abutting lands drain onto the project site, so the project will have no impact on
stormwater runoff from other adjacent parcels. The nature and extent of the
wetlands in Open Space Parcel C would make a topographic survey there
impractical and potentially dangerous. A waiver will be requested from Section
5.2.5.3.2 of the regulations, which requires that the plans include existing
contours in the subdivision and extending 50' beyond the perimeter of the
subdivision.
26. Proposed house numbers assigned by the North Andover Public Works
Department must be shown on the plan.
CSI response: The house numbers will be added to the plans if we receive them
from the DPW prior to endorsement.
27. The proposed cul-de-sac does not meet the minimum pavement diameter of
100 feet (per 6.8.1).
CSI response: The cul-de-sac diameter is 100 feet, as required. On Sheet 8 of
the Plans the inside diameter of the island has been incorrectly labeled as 20 feet
where it is actually 26 feet. The plan will be corrected.
Waivers
1. Minimum pavement width – Hancock does not see an issue with the
pavement width proposed at 24 feet given the number of lots being serviced.
The Applicant should correct the cul-de-sac pavement diameter and provide
proof that the North Andover Fire Department can navigate the turnaround
with the proposed landscaped island.
CSI response: The cul-de-sac dimensions are consistent with the dimensions that
are typically required and approved by the Board. A set of plans was submitted to
the Fire Department for review.
2. Granite curbing – The stormwater management system proposed featured
low impact design roadside swale. If the Planning Board is generally
acceptable of this methodology and the Public Works Department accepts
the responsibility of implementing a different method of snow plowing so as to
not block the swales, Hancock does not see an issue with the waiver.
CSI response: No response necessary.
3. Sidewalks – Hancock defers to the Board on this matter as it entails a town
wide approach to pedestrian safety.
CSI response: No response necessary.
z Page 10
4. Street Trees – Hancock defers to the Board on this matter as it relates to the
issue of long-term protection and maintenance of these trees located on
private property.
CSI response: The trees are proposed outside of the right-of-way where
drainage swales are proposed so as not to interfere with the integrity of the
drainage swales.
5. Street Lights – Hancock defers to the Board on this matter as it entails a town
wide approach to public safety.
CSI response: No response necessary.
6. Benchmarks – Hancock does not see an issue with the use of the 1988
NAVD datum. This datum is not more readily accepted and is the datum now
used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with floodplain
mapping.
CSI response: No response necessary.
7. Monuments – Hancock believes the smaller size monuments are acceptable,
however recommends the Board require the front corners of the Open Space
parcels be monumented.
CSI response: The plans will be revised to include monuments at the front lot
corners of the Open Space parcels.
8. Location of Existing Structures – Hancock does not see an issue with not
showing the on site structures on all sheets as the structures are being razed.
As mentioned earlier, the structures within 50 feet of the subdivision boundary
are required to be shown within the plan set. The Applicant should comply
with this requirement as he is requesting a waiver from the P.R.D. 50 foot
Buffer. The Board should be able to view abutting structures to assist in their
review of this waiver (if authorized).
CSI response: There are no existing structures located within 50 feet of the
subdivision boundaries.
9. Environmental Impact Analysis – Hancock defers to the Board regarding this
issue.
CSI response: No response necessary.
10. Height – Hancock recommends the Board seek Town Counsel input
regarding the authority to grant such a waiver.
CSI response: See response to Comment 5, above, under Definitive Subdivision
heading.
11. P.R.D. 50 foot Buffer- Hancock recommends the Board seek Town Counsel
input regarding the authority to grant such a waiver.
CSI response: See response to Comment 5, above, under Definitive Subdivision
heading.
The Definitive Plans and supporting documents will be revised as noted to address
the comments made by Hancock Associates, Eggleston Environmental, and the
Town Departments.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Christiansen & Sergi, Inc.
C `
PY"k G. hristiansen
0 Page 11
Autumn Chase PRD Special Permit Approval
In particular, the Planning Board finds that the project will:
a. Promote the more efficient use of land in harmony with its natural features by preserving
additional open space, reducing the amount of clearing and excavation normally
associated with the construction of residential dwellings on a site such as this, and
facilitates the economical and efficient provision of utilities;
b. Protect water bodies and supplies, wetlands, floodplains, hillsides, wildlife and other
natural resources due to the preservation of open space, and the project design mi irrLes
and protects such natural resources;
c. Encourage the preservation of open space. The applicant has provided approximately 10
acres of the property as Useable Open Space;
d. Permit greater flexibility and more attractive and efficient design of residential
development. The subdivision design both proposes and allows preservation of the
existing rural character along Summer Street, while conforming to the goals and policies
of the Master Plan of the Town of North Andover;
e. Meet the Town's housing needs.
f. The Planning Board also finds that a base density of 16 house lots is appropriate for the
PRD as a conventional subdivision design would also yield 16 new single-family homes.
The Planning Board herein grants a waiver from strict compliance with Section 8.5 Paragraph 6,
Section D, Buffer Zone. Specifically, the Planning Board finds that the house, or structure,
located on Lot 16 may be located within 50' of the site perimeter boundary, The applicant has
demonstrated that by allowing this waiver the subdivision can be improved by adding over one
(1) acre of Usable Open space to the total Usable Open Space, and allows the connection of
Usable Open Space Parcel A to the State Forest property located adjacent to the site.
Finally, the Planning Board finds that the Planned Residential Development complies with the
Bylaw requirements and grants a Special Permit subject to the following conditions:
The developer shall designate an independent Environmental Monitor who shall be chosen in
consultation with the Planning and Community Development Staff. The Environmental
Monitor must be available upon four (4) hours notice to inspect the site with the Planning
Board designated official. The Environmental Monitor shall make weekly inspections of the
project, meet weekly with the Town Planner and file monthly written reports to the Board,
detailing areas of non-compliance and with the plans and conditions of approval.
2. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to assure that no erosion on the site shall occur
which will cause deposition of soil or sediment upon adjacent properties or public ways,
except as normally ancillary to off-site sewer and other off-site construction Off-site erosion
will be a basis for the Planning Board making a finding that the project is not in compliance
with the plan.
Page 2 of 6